alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 114 (Monday, July 30, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5331]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

    CONGRESSIONAL EARMARKS, LIMITED TAX BENEFITS, OR LIMITED TARIFF 
                                BENEFITS

  Under clause 9 of rule XXI, lists or statements on congressional 
earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits were 
submitted as follows:

                          Offered By Mr. Camp

       The provisions that warranted a referral to the Committee 
     on Ways and Means in H.R. 8, the ``Job Protection and 
     Recession Prevention Act of 2012,'' do not contain any 
     congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited 
     tariff benefits as defined in clause 9 of rule XXI of the 
     Rules of the U.S. House of Representatives.
```
# C_2020423EN.01001401.xml

| 7.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/14

---

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 1 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg — Austria) — FP Passenger Service GmbH v Austrian Airlines AG

(Case C-654/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Compensation of air passengers in the event of long delay of flights - Right to compensation in the event of delay - Length of delay - Time of opening of the aircraft’s doors at destination - Actual arrival time - Scheduled time of arrival - Question on which the Court has already ruled or where the answer to such a question may be clearly deduced from the case-law)

(2020/C 423/21)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Korneuburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: FP Passenger Service GmbH

Defendant: Austrian Airlines AG

Operative part of the order

Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, read in the light of the judgment of 4 September 2014, Germanwings (C-452/13, EU:C:2014:2141), must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of determining the extent of the delay suffered by passengers on a flight on arrival, it is necessary to calculate the time between the scheduled time of arrival and the actual arrival time, that is to say, the moment when at least one of the doors of the aircraft is opened, it being understood that, at that moment, the passengers are permitted to leave it.

---

(1)  OJ C 406, 2.12.2019.

---
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

USDA Publishes Advance Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking on New

Framework for Livestock Disease

Indemnity Valuation

Print

Contact:

APHISpress@usda.gov

WASHINGTON, September 6, 2022 – The United States Department of Agriculture’s

(USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is publishing an advance

notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) to solicit public comments on a new approach

to indemnity valuation and a new indemnity framework. This approach aims to

standardize and provide greater consistency to the livestock indemnification

process.

The ANPR describes two structural changes to the indemnity regulations. The first is

the use of an annual indemnity value table to standardize the indemnification

process and resolve discrepancies between disease programs. The current

regulations for valuing animals for indemnification vary from species to species and,

in some cases, from disease to disease within the same species. Under the new

approach outlined in the ANPR, APHIS would collaborate with other USDA

agencies—including the Farm Service Agency’s Livestock Indemnity Program—to

develop harmonized USDA indemnity values, along with the methodology to
determine them. These values would be published online annually.

Second, the ANPR describes an approach to standardize allowances for appraisal

when an indemnity value cannot be calculated using the tables or when a producer

elects to appeal the indemnity value based on extraordinary circumstances

surrounding the animals at issue. This approach would resolve known challenges

with indemnification based on fair market appraisal by an appraiser.

The ANPR also outlines the potential consolidation of all APHIS indemnity regulations

into a single section of the Code of Federal Regulations. This would harmonize how

APHIS addresses value determination, compensation for cleaning and disposal, and

other related issues across existing programs.

APHIS is publishing the ANPR to solicit comments to inform future rulemaking.

Specifically, we are seeking comments on the standardized approach to indemnity

valuation and how it may affect members of the public, as well as any suggestions

to improve it. We are also seeking input on whether any species or commodity

classes would not benefit from consolidation, whether consolidation would

significantly alter disease management, and any other concerns.

This ANPR may be viewed in today’s Federal Register at 

https://www.federalregister.gov/public-inspection/2022-19260/indemnity-regulations

. Beginning tomorrow, members of the public may submit comments at

www.regulations.gov. All comments must be received by November 6, 2022. APHIS

will carefully review and consider all comments before developing a proposed rule.
From: Muldoon, Albert (OST)

To: "lplacek@cityofalliance.net" ; "jdcox@cityofalliance.net" ; "kfischer@chadron-nebraska.com" ; Wayne Anderson

(manager@chadron-nebraska.com) ; "pfisher@chadron-nebraska.com"

Cc: Shawn Simpson <shawn@boutiqueair.com> (shawn@boutiqueair.com) ; "david.schroeder@gemairflights.com" ;

"Mike Matthews" ; Doug Voss ; Chuck Howell ; "Kelly Carbone" ; Schlemmer, Kevin (OST)

Subject: EAS at Alliance & Chadron, NE - Request for Comments - Due February 18, 2015

Date: Thursday, January 15, 2015 9:48:08 AM

Attachments: AIA-CDR Bid 2015 Great Lakes 1 14 15.pdf

AIACDRBid.pdf

Gem Air, LLC EAS Proposal Alliance, NE and Chadron, NE.pdf

Via Air - Alliance Chadron Proposal.pdf

All:

I would like to update you on the Essential Air Service (EAS) situation at Alliance and

Chadron, Nebraska, and give you an opportunity to submit comments on the record before

we submit a recommendation to the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International

Affairs. In anticipation of the current contract’s expiration on May 31, 2015, the

Department issued Order 2014-11-10 (November 12, 2014) soliciting proposals from carriers

to provide EAS at Alliance and/or Chadron, NE, for a new contract period beginning June 1,

2015. In response to that Order, we received proposals from four carriers:

Great Lakes (the incumbent)

ViaAir

Gem Air

Boutique Air

I have attached a copy of each of the proposals to this email for your review. The proposals

will also soon be available online through the Federal Dockets Management System at

www.regulations.gov by entering “DOT-OST-2000-8322” in the search box.

Please carefully review the proposals and submit any comments you may have as soon as

possible, but no later than February 18, 2015

. Please send your comments via email to

EAS@dot.gov

. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions and please forward this

email to any relevant parties not included on this email.

Regards,

A.J.

A.J. Muldoon

Office of Aviation Analysis

U.S. Department of Transportation

albert.muldoon@dot.gov

(202) 366-1058
**EXHIBIT      32**

**Certification      of Periodic Financial Report **

**by      the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer **

**Pursuant      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

| Date: August 4, 2006  | /s/ Dennis              Calvert                                 |
|----------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                       | Dennis Calvert                                                                                                                                                                                                                  |
|                       | Chief Executive              Officer                                                                                                                                                                                            |

| Date: August 4, 2006  | /s/ Dennis              Calvert                                 |
|----------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                       | Dennis Calvert                                                                                                                                                                                                                  |
|                       | Interim Chief Financial              Officer                                                                                                                                                                                    |

----
December 28, 1999

22106

#### State v. Kalai

Affirmed
#### SELECTED INVESTMENTS CORPORATION, a Corp., Plaintiff in Error, v. Oley FORD and Delma Ford, Defendants in Error.

No. 37791.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Jan. 21, 1958.

W. E. Green, Raymond G. Feldman, Wm. S. Hall, Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.

Loeffler, Loeffler & Allen, Bristow, for defendants in error.

PER CURIAM.

The record in this case reveals that the petition in error with case-made attached was filed in this court on April 25, 1957. The record also reveals that the case-made was settled by stipulation and agreement of the parties on March 18, 1957, and certified by the court clerk on March 29, 1957.

It is apparent that this court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine this case on appeal. 12 O.S.1955 Supp. § 972 requires that appeals be filed within twenty days of the date the case-made is settled. This is a jurisdictional requirement that cannot be waived by the parties or overlooked by this court. Although no motion to dismiss has been filed, it is the duty of this court to examine into its jurisdiction in each case and if it is without jurisdiction, to dismiss the appeal. Video Independent *1114Theatres, Inc., v. Walker, Okl., 308 P.2d 958.

Appeal dismissed.

WELCH, C. J., CORN, V. C. J., and HALLEY, JOHNSON, WILLIAMS, BLACKBIRD, JACKSON and CARLILE, JJ-, concur.

DAVISON, J.,

concurs by reason of the rule of stari decisis.

The Court acknowledges the aid of the Supreme Court Commission in the preparation of this opinion. After a tentative opinion was written by the Commission the cause was assigned to a Justice of this Court. Thereafter upon report and consideration in conference, the foregoing opinion was adopted by the Court.
# C_2010134EN.01000902.xml

| 22.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 134/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 134/9

---

Order of the Court of 9 December 2009 — Luigi Marcuccio v European Commission

(Case C-432/08 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Officials - Social security - Payment of medical expenses - Implied rejection of the application seeking reimbursement in full of medical expenses incurred by the applicant - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

2010/C 134/15

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (represented by: G. Cipressa, avvocato)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, acting as Agents, and A. dal Ferro, avvocato)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 9 July 2008 in Joined Cases T-296/05 and T-408/05 Marcuccio v Commission, by which the Court dismissed as inadmissible the application for annulment of two implied decisions of the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme of the European Communities refusing to pay 100 % of certain medical costs incurred by the applicant and an application for an order that the Commission pay to the applicant amounts in respect of certain medical costs

Marcuccio

Commission

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Marcuccio is ordered to pay the costs of the appeal. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Marcuccio is ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 313, 6.12.2008.

1

---
# C_2009153EN.01001602.xml

| 4.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 153/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 153/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-368/08) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2004/35/EC - Remedying of environmental damage - ‘Polluter pays’ principle))

2009/C 153/31

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: U. Wölker and I. Dimitriou, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: N. Dafniou, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | declares that by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 19(1) of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

declares that by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 19(1) of that directive;

| 2. | orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 247, 27.9.2008.

1

---
#### Carl, Appellant, *v.*American Window Glass Company et al.

Argued April 20, 1943.

Before Keller, P. J., Bald-rige, Stadteeld, Rhodes, Kenworthey and Reno, JJ. (Hirt, J., absent).

*476
      *Samuel J. Goldstein,*for appellant.

*Murray J. Jordan*and *Fred J. Jordan,*for appellees, were not heard.

July 16, 1943:

Per Curiam,

Claimant’s husband died from a coronary occlusion. She filed a claim for compensation, alleging that his death was due to heat exhaustion, suffered in the course of his employment by the defendant.

A post-mortem examination was performed by Dr. Mayhew, in the presence of Doctors Doncaster and Cervino — the latter of whom was the attending physician — all of whom agreed that death was caused by a coronary occlusion, due to a thrombosis, a natural cause, in no way induced by the alleged heat exhaustion.

The referee found as a fact that “Joseph Carl [claimant’s husband] died on July 27, 1938 due to a coronary occlusion; that this condition was not caused by reason of the decedent’s employment, and that this condition, even though it was present prior to July 26 and 27, 1938, was not aggravated, contributed to or accelerated by decedent’s employment.” He accordingly disallowed the claim.

On appeal to the board, the referee’s findings of fact and conclusions of law and disallowance of compensation were approved by the board.

There was ample medical evidence to sustain the board’s action.

The question was one of fact, the decision of which was for the board; and their findings, being supported by substantial, competent evidence, cannot be set aside by the court of common pleas or this court.

*477The case is in line with our recent decisions in *Hammill v. Matthew Cummings Co.,*149 Pa. Superior Ct. 121, 27 A. 2d 289; *Bowers v. Schell,*152, Pa. Superior Ct. 112, 31 A. 2d 442; and *Senchak v. Tech Food Products Co.,*152 Pa. Superior Ct. 247, 31 A. 2d 746, which refer in greater detail to the governing authorities.

Judgment affirmed.
23470

#### State v. Hill

Affirmed
Order entered February 12, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-00705-CV

CITY OF DALLAS, Appellant

V.

BRIAN LONCAR, SUE LONCAR, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-09-06753-C

ORDER

Appellees’ January 30, 2014 unopposed motion for filing a motion for rehearing is 

GRANTED, and the time is extended until February 18, 2014.

/s/ DAVID L. BRIDGES 

JUSTICE
**Exhibit 15.2**

 

November 8, 2005 

 

The Board of Directors 

Education Management Corporation and Subsidiaries 

 

We are aware of the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-20057, 333-20073,333-31398, 333-76096, 333-76654, 333-85518, 333-106270, 333-106271, 333-110706) pertaining to Education Management Corporation and Subsidiaries’ Deferred Compensation Plan and Retirement Plan of our report dated November 8, 2005, relatingto the unaudited condensed consolidated interim financial statements of Education Management Corporation and Subsidiaries that are included in its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2005. 

 

/S/    ERNST & YOUNG LLP 

 

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
#### Kenneth Simmons, Respondent, v Two Wheel Corp., Defendant, and Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A., Appellant.

(Appeal No. 1.)

— Appeal unanimously dismissed without costs *(see, Loafin’ Tree Rest, v Pardi*[appeal No. 1], 162 AD2d 985). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Queens County, Graci, J. — Strike Note of Issue.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Boomer, Pine and Lawton, JJ.
#### Milton Scheinblum, Also Known as Mickey Sheen, Plaintiff, *v.*Long Island Daily Press Publishing Company, Incorporated, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Queens County,

July 30, 1959.

*Goldman, Evans & Goldman*for defendant.

*Theodore Ranzenhofer*for plaintiff.

Henry J. Latham, J.

Motion by defendant for a change of venue of this action from Kings County to Queens County.

No claim is made that an impartial trial cannot be had in Kings County. Neither is the application founded on any claim that the convenience of material witnesses or the ends of justice, will be promoted by the change. The sole ground urged on this application is that Queens County is the proper county for the trial of this action. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 187.)

Plaintiff is a resident of Kings County. Defendant has its principal place of business in Queens County. While the largest portion of defendant’s circulation is in Queens County, a substantial number of its newspapers (over 16,000) are circulated in Kings County.

In *Johnston*v. *MacFadden Newspapers Corp.*(238 App. Div. 68, 71) the Appellate Division said: “ The general rule is that an action for libel may be brought and tried in any county or State in which the libel is published or circulated.”

In any event, libel is a transitory action, and venue for such actions may always be placed in the county of residence of either of the parties. Since plaintiff resides in Kings County, he could properly bring the action there, and it cannot be said that venue was laid in the wrong county.

Cases cited by the defendant are readily distinguishable. In *Armbruster*v. *Brady*(154 N. Y. S. 2d 678) plaintiff and defendant were both residents of Westchester County where the paper was published. Plaintiff attempted to bring the action in Bronx County, where neither party resided.

In *Alexander*v. *Brooklyn Eagle*(114 N. Y. S. 2d 5, affd. 280 App. Div. 929) plaintiff and defendant were both residents of *135Kings County, where the paper was published, and plaintiff attempted to bring the action in New York County.

In *Barnes*v. *Roosevelt*(164 App. Div. 540) the court noted that the county of residence of either plaintiff or defendant could be designated as the county of trial *(supra,*pp. 541, 542) but granted a change of venue to make sure that the fairness of the trial would be apparent to everyone, since plaintiff was a political leader of the county where venue was originally laid.

It cannot be said that Kings County was not a proper county in which the bring this action, and defendant’s motion must be denied.

Submit order.
Exhibit






AMENDMENT TO THE
AMENDED AND RESTATED EMULEX CORPORATION
2005 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN


February 1, 2016


This Amendment (this “Amendment”) to the Amended and Restated  Emulex Corporation 2005 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) is effective as of the date first set forth above, such amendment being approved by the Board of Directors of Broadcom Limited (the “Company”) pursuant to Section 9 of the Plan. The Plan is hereby amended as follows:


		
	1.
	All references in the Plan to the “Company” or “Emulex Corporation” shall refer to the Company. The following will replace Section 2.17 of the Plan in its entirety:




“2.17 “Company” means Broadcom Limited, a limited Company incorporated under the Republic of Singapore.”


		
	2.
	All references to “stock,” “shares,” “common stock,” “shares of common stock” or other similar terms in the Plan shall refer to the ordinary shares of the Company. The following will replace Section 2.16 of the Plan in its entirety:




“2.16 “Shares” means the ordinary shares of the Company.”


		
	3.
	Except as provided in this Amendment, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.










*    *    *    *    *
MEMORANDUM

DATE: November 20, 2014

TO: Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket ID: OAR-2013-0602

FROM: Rob Lawrence

EPA/Region 6/PD

SUBJECT: August 7, 2014 Brief Remarks Regarding the Proposed Carbon Power Plan for 

Existing Power Plants at the annual conference of the State Bar of Texas, 

Environment and Natural Resources Law Section

SUMMARY

Brief remarks (part of a larger presentation) were made by EPA at the annual conference of the 

State Bar of Texas, Environment and Natural Resources Law Section, on the proposed Carbon 

Power Plan for Existing Power Plants, which was proposed on June 2, 2014. The conference 

was held in Austin, Texas.

ATTENDEES

Large group setting 

EPA Participant: Ron Curry (Regional Administrator)